ReviewReviews in medical virology2022
A rapid review of measures to support people in isolation or quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of such measures.
Review in Reviews in medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid reviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Difficulties in adherence to social distancing and quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from a longitudinal study comparing migrants and non-migrants in a city in Norway.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Psychological distress across the deployment cycle: comparing pre- and peri-pandemic trajectories.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Enhanced testing can substantially improve defense against several types of respiratory virus pandemic.Epidemics · 2025Article
- Experiences of south Asian key workers in COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom.Journal of migration and health · 2025Article
- Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Factors That Affect the COVID-19 Pandemic in Summer 2022 Compared to Summer 2021.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The hidden burden of medical testing: public views and experiences of COVID-19 testing as a social and ethical process.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review.Reviews in medical virology · 2022Review
- A rapid review of measures to support people in isolation or quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of such measures.Reviews in medical virology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This rapid review aimed to identify measures available to support those in isolation or quarantine during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, and determine their effectiveness in improving adherence to these recommendations and or reducing transmission. The rapid review consisted of two elements, the first was a review of guidance published by national and international agencies relating to measures to support those in isolation (due to case status) or quarantine (due to close contact status) during the Covid-19 pandemic. Five categories of support measures were identified in the international guidance, they were: Psychological, addiction and safety supports, Essential supplies, Financial aid, Information provision and Enforcement. The second element was a rapid literature review of the effectiveness of measures used to support individuals in isolation or quarantine during any pandemic or epidemic setting, due to respiratory pathogens. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and nonpeer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2021. Two Australian publications met the inclusion criteria, both based on data from a survey undertaken during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The first reported that 55% of households were fully compliant with quarantine recommendations, and that there was increased compliance reported in households that understood what they were meant to do compared with those who reported that they did not (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-3.80). The second reported that access to paid sick and or carer's leave did not predict compliance with quarantine recommendations (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 0.82-5.23). Neither reported on reduction in transmission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.